I really enjoyed this movie, which tells the story of an agent sent out to investigate the mysterious death of a scientist stationed on a moon of Saturn. Apparently, the scientist chose one day to walk out of his station with no protective gear and died.
The film manages with music and cinematography and acting to create an atmosphere of deep paranoia and anxiety. It's really quite beautiful to watch. Some may find it slow and lumbering, but that adds to the overall emotional effect. I found myself hypnotized by the leisurely pace and slow exposition of the characters' mental states through pregnant dialog and careful cinematography.
As for criticisms I have read about the sets, go see a crappy zillion dollar Hollywood movie if that's what you want. I thought the sets were perfect for the story--claustrophobic, industrial, and threatening.
My only criticism is that a bit more of a plot or a final revelation would have increased the film's entertainment value. The dialog is well-written, but others have complained that the story goes nowhere. I can understand this criticism, but I feel the film's other virtues make up for it.
It perhaps would have been better had the central revelations of the movie been presented in ways that resolved the tensions so well developed in the film. Two big questions propel the movie forward. The first is what happened to the dead scientist. The second is how the investigating agent came to be on this mission and in his disturbed frame of mind. Neither issue gets a completely clear resolution. Moreover, it might have been nice if the resolutions of both had a clear connection.
I think the movie's creator may have stumbled over one of the most common obstacles in the making of fantasy or science-fiction quest movies of this sort. Ultimately, it is very hard to create a revelation that is worth all the build up but not trivial or ridiculous or incomprehensible. The end of Kubrick's 2001 is a case in point.
More plot-contrived intrigue would've helped, too--clearer deceptions and recognitions of deceptions among the characters. I think that that would've alleviated some of the critical complaints that nothing happens in the movie. However, while such plotting may have made the movie easier to watch for people who crave more action, it also may have done damage to the creator's vision, too--who I think was trying to create a sense of brooding mystery with no clear answers.
Perhaps the creator should have re-read "Oedipus the King" by Sophocles. Now there's a murder mystery for the ages, where, through complex twists and turns and revelations a resolution is reached that solves the murder and affects the investigator.
I loved this film; I hope its creator does more; I just hope he is willing next time to pay a bit more attention to theories of plotting movies for interest.
